site C decision ?

Ummmm …

California offers incentives for residential solar, as part of their goal to get to 33% of their generated power from renewables, by year 2020. Incentives vary, but go from about $1 to $2 per installed watt of generating capacity. So 4 kW on the roof earns $4k to $8k payback. They're up to something like 5 or 6% solar generation to date. Not a big portion, but significant and growing.

ok, but wrt coal and efficiency how is that being compared to emissions from ice's? and where are you getting those numbers from? from what i've seen coal provides close to half of the electricity in the us and is touted as the single biggest polluter in the us.

i agree that california is a great place for solar, but i don't think it's going to be able to meet it's needs primarily through solar. right now wind provides twice the electricity to the grid that solar does.

the bigger question is how much extra electricity would need to be generated to meet ev demands and where is that going to come from if current generation capabilities are already close to capacity?

California offers incentives for residential solar, as part of their goal to get to 33% of their generated power from renewables, by year 2020. Incentives vary, but go from about $1 to $2 per installed watt of generating capacity. So 4 kW on the roof earns $4k to $8k payback. They're up to something like 5 or 6% solar generation to date. Not a big portion, but significant and growing.

And California's residential rate is something like 3 times that of BC. Unlikely you'll find many people here who want those rates.

Is BC Hydros export power sales division not facing legal action from "The Great State of California?"Say it in The Governator voice! Somewhere in the tune of what this project will cost?

Settled last year (just grabbed one of the news stories from Google, there might be better ones):
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-hydro-s-powerex-pays-750m-to-settle-california-claims-1.1378482

Interesting read:
http://c21.phas.ubc.ca/article/solar-energy-temperate-climate

Not a lot of sunshine in these parts. Why aren't mirrors used to direct more sunlight onto a PV panel?
http://pv.nrcan.gc.ca/pvmapper.php?LAYERS=2057,4240[HTML_REMOVED]SETS=1707,1708,1709,1710,1122[HTML_REMOVED]ViewRegion=-2508487%2C5404897%2C3080843%2C10464288[HTML_REMOVED]title_e=PV+potential+and+insolation[HTML_REMOVED]title_f=Potentiel+photovoltaïque+et+ensoleillement[HTML_REMOVED]lang=e

re the farmland being shitty, that was the point for this particular land; that it is high quality farmland and pretty much the best the northern region has. it may only be a drop in the bucket but if that's all the good land they have then shouldn't that be even more of a reason not to flood it out?

and yeah, hot houses are a great way to go but from what i read most of our hot stuff is exported.

most of this electricity is really for the hopeful LNG industry.

it would be the equivalent of saying they shouldnt widen the transmission lines on seymour because it would take out 5 feet off the end of salvation. plus I can look at that google earth link and tell you that it aint that great of farmland in the first place.

I just think its irreverent in terms of whether you build this dam or not

Interesting read:
http://c21.phas.ubc.ca/article/solar-energy-temperate-climate

Article is from 2010. What are the numbers for current panels and costs?

Article is from 2010. What are the numbers for current panels and costs?

Yah, the numbers are way out of date, using a number like $7500 for a 1 kW system. Also, the article assumes that the power will be an island, so the conclusion is that batteries are needed. Batteries, and the equipment needed to charge and connect to house power is very expensive. Grid tied is the way to go unless you're in an area without grid power.

http://www.wholesalesolar.com/gridtie.html

For $7200USD, you can get 3.8 kW of solar panels, including all the gear for racking on the roof, interconnecting and the inverter for tying to hydro grid. In LM area, mounted on a south-facing roof with minimal shading, that would yield about 4500 kWh per year. Annual savings on your power bill: $337 if you are displacing Tier 1 power only, $472 if displacing Tier 2 power.

480 bucks return on a 83,000 Dollar investment isnt really a great sales pitch

whats the lifespan on those panels?

Yah, the numbers are way out of date, using a number like $7500 for a 1 kW system. Also, the article assumes that the power will be an island, so the conclusion is that batteries are needed. Batteries, and the equipment needed to charge and connect to house power is very expensive. Grid tied is the way to go unless you're in an area without grid power.

http://www.wholesalesolar.com/gridtie.html

For $7200USD, you can get 3.8 kW of solar panels, including all the gear for racking on the roof, interconnecting and the inverter for tying to hydro grid. In LM area, mounted on a south-facing roof with minimal shading, that would yield about 4500 kWh per year. Annual savings on your power bill: $337 if you are displacing Tier 1 power only, $472 if displacing Tier 2 power.

Call it $10 k installed.

That's still a 30 year payback…

However, over 50 years its $6,850 gain - that's equal to an interest rate of 2% with inflation at 2%….

That's still a hard sale for most people. The Government needs to step up and apply a small incentive and then this would take off.

I guess another way to look at it is comparing it to an income fund investment where a $10,000 input gets you $337 a year in dividend…

oops i read that wrong 10k is not so bad

$83,000? I think you meant $8,300 converting USD to CDN?

And yes, you're right - that's about a 20-25 year payback, including some installation costs. Panels should last 25-30 years with reasonable cleaning, say once/year. So today, if one wishes to install rooftop solar it's not really feasible from a 100% economic viewpoint. There's a bit of the "environmental visionary" aspect needed also.

If the province truly wishes to get on board, then just like California and elsewhere, they need to put some offsetting credits. A dollar per installed kilowatt would be a good start. That would spur more installation, reduce dependence on other power sources and create a job market for supplying and installing solar that pretty much doesn't exist right now.

But that takes vision.

Keep in mind that I've been tracking the prices for about 18 months now. Solar is getting cheaper on a month by month basis. It's a safe bet that the 4kW system will cost 10-20% less a year from now.

so is it false that the area to be flooded represents the best farmland in all of northern bc?

According to BC Hydro, if you believe them, the current annual value of crops in the 3800 ha of land (about 1/3 the area of the City of Vancouver) to be flooded is $220,000. The area of agricultural land to be flooded represents 1% of Class 1 to 5 agricultural land in the Peace Agricultural Region and less than 20% Class 1 to 5 lands in the Peace Valley.

https://www.sitecproject.com/sites/default/files/info-sheet-agriculture-june-2014.pdf

it would be the equivalent of saying they shouldnt widen the transmission lines on seymour because it would take out 5 feet off the end of salvation. plus I can look at that google earth link and tell you that it aint that great of farmland in the first place.

I just think its irreverent in terms of whether you build this dam or not

ok, again just going off of what i heard, in relation to losing the land though, it seems part of the sales pitch is that "well there's so much land here in bc it doesn't matter if we take just this one little bit." that prevailing attitude stretches across a lot of ideas simply because bc is so large and carries such a small population. similar to the point KenN was making about why people don't conserve electricity more. so i can see how a lot of people would be ok with flooding that valley. unless of course it happens to be your land and your home.

According to BC Hydro, if you believe them, the current annual value of crops in the 3800 ha of land (about 1/3 the area of the City of Vancouver) to be flooded is $220,000. The area of agricultural land to be flooded represents 1% of Class 1 to 5 agricultural land in the Peace Agricultural Region and less than 20% Class 1 to 5 lands in the Peace Valley.

https://www.sitecproject.com/sites/default/files/info-sheet-agriculture-june-2014.pdf

yeah, but they're clumping class 1 to 5 lands into the same package. if you look at the class definitions for agricultural land there's a big difference between class 1 and 5.

scroll down a bit for teh definitions:

http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/nsdb/cli/class.html